Blitz Bureau
THE Supreme Court on August 4 pulled up Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks insulting the Indian Army. During the Bharat Jodo Yatra, Gandhi had allegedly said, “Chinese troops are thrashing Indian Army soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh,” referring to the December 9, 2022, face-off in the Tawang sector.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi expressed disapproval of Rahul’s claim that 2,000 square kilometres of Indian territory had been occupied by China, adding that “if he were a true Indian, he would not have said all this.”
“How do you know that 2,000 square kilometres of Indian territory were occupied by the Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material? If you were a true Indian, you would not say all this. When there is a conflict across the order, is it unusual to have casualties on both sides?” the Justice Datta-led Bench asked senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul .
“Whatever you have to say, why don’t you say it in the Parliament? Why do you have to say this in social media posts?” further asked the apex court. The remarks came after Singhvi argued that it would be an “unfortunate situation” if an opposition leader cannot be allowed to raise issues of national concern in the press.
The apex court agreed to examine Rahul’s plea, which raises the issue of mandatory notice to the proposed accused at the pre-cognisance stage, and sought responses from the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant in the matter. Further, the Bench granted interim relief to Rahul against the summoning order issued by the Lucknow court.
The complainant, Udai Shankar Srivastava, a retired Director from the Border Roads Organisation, alleged that Rahul’s statements were “false and baseless”, intended to “demoralise the Indian Army” and damage national morale. Earlier in May, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed Rahul Gandhi’s plea to quash the criminal defamation case, rejecting the argument that the complainant lacked the legal standing to file the case, as he was not directly named. A single-judge Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ruled that even a third party can be considered an “aggrieved person” if they are harmed by defamatory remarks.
It said, “the trial court has rightly arrived at the decision to summon the applicant (Gandhi) to face trial for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case”. Declining to exercise its inherent powers, the Allahabad High Court observed that the trial court’s summoning order dated February 11, 2025, “did not suffer from any illegality” and refused to interfere with it.
Following this,Rahul appeared before the MP-MLA court in Lucknow and secured bail on the condition of furnishing his personal bond of Rs 20,000 with two sureties of the like amount. At the same time, he also approached the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order refusing to quash the defamation case against him. The trial court had earlier issued multiple summons to Rahul in the case, but he failed to appear.
